The Myth of The Jesus Myth

[Buttons*]

gnostics were far from one group....
While many were ascetics, not all were

One has to remember the vast majority of Gnostic writings are actually anti-gnostic

Not only that, but almost EVERY tradition had a group of ascetics. Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, many tribes of Africa (I don't know all their names)... these, I am 100% sure, had ascetic members. We can't cut out the good bits of the Nag Hammadi scripture simply because of something so common.

 

[Oberon]

I realize that Gandy and Freke don't do a completely thorough job of discussing Gnosticism - but then, they aren't Gnostic scholars. I don't even think they have a doctorate.

They don't. One has a B.A. in psychology, and the other supposedly has an M.A. in classical civilizations. However, they show know knowledge of ancient greek.

they did believe in a feminine and male balance. Male is not all that matters. In this way, it is an important step forward.

Some texts show more appreciation for the feminine then others. The gospel of Thomas assumes that the "feminine" must go through a "masculine" step on its way to perfection. Males are inherently more perfect. Other texts share this view. Not all of them do. It is difficult to say, of course, because there is no agreement on which texts are "gnostic" and which aren't.

 

[Buttons*]

Some texts show more appreciation for the feminine then others. The gospel of Thomas assumes that the "feminine" must go through a "masculine" step on its way to perfection. Males are inherently more perfect. Other texts share this view. Not all of them do. It is difficult to say, of course, because there is no agreement on which texts are "gnostic" and which aren't.

In the scholarly sense, many who study Christian Gnosticism have a good idea of which ones fall into this tradition. Not all agree, mind you, but we're still investigating. It's a process.

The Gospel of Thomas is one that can be taken in MANY different ways. When Yeshua discusses how to make her male, it's more about restoring her balance than actually making her male. The men have to also adopt a feminine side. But in Thomas, it's clear that the men weren't ready for this teaching, so Yeshua didn't mention that bit to them. THOUGH, this is just from what I've read of scholars who dissect this text. (With an appreciation for the gospel of Mary, I assume.) There are many texts where the feminine is favored. Take Mary, or Thunder - both speak to a more feminine tongue for female enlightenment as well as male.

It's a topic for more research. Not one that looks at Gandy, Freke, and Dan Brown and ends the investigation there.

 

[cesara]

Some texts show more appreciation for the feminine then others. The gospel of Thomas assumes that the "feminine" must go through a "masculine" step on its way to perfection. Males are inherently more perfect. Other texts share this view. Not all of them do. It is difficult to say, of course, because there is no agreement on which texts are "gnostic" and which aren't.

I have read, and accept the idea that the passages elluding to females changing into male was for the benefit of the apostles who, due to social conditions could not accept a woman as a leader or peer. Jesus told them to see Mary as a man in order to step beyond these social conditions. I think it makes sense.

 

[Oberon]

It's a topic for more research. Not one that looks at Gandy, Freke, and Dan Brown and ends the investigation there.

Only the purpose of this thread was to address the claim that Jesus never lived but was a mythic godman, as described in Freke and Gandy and others like them. Not to discuss just what is or isn't gnosticism, and what tenets various currents of gnosticism had.

 

[cesara]

It's a topic for more research. Not one that looks at Gandy, Freke, and Dan Brown and ends the investigation there.

Quoted for truth. It's unfortunate that the general public has harvested their information about Gnosticism from these sources -- pop culture gone awry. [not surprisingly]

 

[Mr Cheese]

I give up, some historical Jesus existed. Let's all go home and sing KUMBAYA.

no!

You havent read peer reviewed Journals, so you dont have the only true answer to these questions. Until you have read these journals and displayed the ability to post links....and learned ancient greek ,,,then you wont know or be able to grasp the one true answer to these questions.

The simple fact that there are many answers to this and related issues, is neither here nor there. Please hit yourself with a stick for being an idiot and thinking that peer reviewed scholars don't have the one and ONLY true answer to the questions of the bible, early christianity and Jesus himself.

Praise peer reviewed scholars.....or die trying

 

[Oberon]

Quoted for truth. It's unfortunate that the general public has harvested their information about Gnosticism from these sources -- pop culture gone awry. [not surprisingly]

Seconded. However, I'm not a big fan of Pagels either. At least she is thoroughly versed on the subject, though.

 

[Mr Cheese]

I have read, and accept the idea that the passages elluding to females changing into male was for the benefit of the apostles who, due to social conditions could not accept a woman as a leader or peer. Jesus told them to see Mary as a man in order to step beyond these social conditions. I think it makes sense.

I think its more to do with transformation....

restoring the yin and yang nature of the initiate....

This is echoed in another part of the nag hammadi library, almost word for word.

On the surface it is about the body, and physicality.
Below the surface we can see that is about being complete...
For it takes a mother anf father to produce a child....
two "opposites" form a third whole...

We see this in the mythic form of Jesus as Yeshu is of his mother and his father
Both and yet neither
Hence the savior, the one that unites the opposites and saves all....

“It is quite usual, when a man comes into intimate spiritual contact with God, that he should feel himself entirely changed from within. Our spirit undergoes a conversion, a metanoia, which reorientates our whole being after raising it to a new level, and even seems to change our whole nature itself.”

–Thomas Merton

I am in everything,
I bear the skies,
I am the foundation,
I support the earth,
I am the Light that shines forth,
that gives joy to the souls.
I am the life of the world:
I am the milk that is in all trees:
I am the sweet water that is beneath the sons of matter.

–Manichaean Psalm Book

 

[cesara]

I think its more to do with transformation....

restoring the yin and yang nature of the initiate....

This is echoed in another part of the nag hammadi library, almost word for word.

On the surface it is about the body, and physicality.
Below the surface we can see that is about being complete...
For it takes a mother anf father to produce a child....
two "opposites" form a third whole...

We see this in the mythic form of Jesus as Yeshu is of his mother and his father
Both and yet neither
Hence the savior, the one that unites the opposites and saves all....

“It is quite usual, when a man comes into intimate spiritual contact with God, that he should feel himself entirely changed from within. Our spirit undergoes a conversion, a metanoia, which reorientates our whole being after raising it to a new level, and even seems to change our whole nature itself.”

–Thomas Merton

I am in everything,
I bear the skies,
I am the foundation,
I support the earth,
I am the Light that shines forth,
that gives joy to the souls.
I am the life of the world:
I am the milk that is in all trees:
I am the sweet water that is beneath the sons of matter.

–Manichaean Psalm Book

Indeed. I suppose what they are saying is that the apostles had a very hard time accepting the idea of women's souls being the same as men's due to the social conditions, which is why he references Mary as having to change from female to male -- so that they would accept her as a peer, which, in essence, Jesus knew she was, as seen in the passages you quote above.

Clear as mud?

 

[logician]

One cannot say with certainty that a historical Jesus existed that remotely resembled the biblical one. We are too far removed in time, and there is too little evidence to make a forthright judment on the matter. Even if you had a time machine and could go back to Jerusalem around the time the supposed Jesus was supposed to have been there, you may not be able to make the determination, he may not be recogizable as being anything like the biblical Jesus,

 

[Oberon]

One cannot say with certainty that a historical Jesus existed that remotely resembled the biblical one.

We can be about as certain that a historical Jesus existed that resembled the biblical Jesus in many ways as we can about anything from ancient history.

We are too far removed in time, and there is too little evidence to make a forthright judment on the matter.

We have lots of evidence.

 

[Mr Cheese]

We have lots of evidence.

Such as ?

 

[Oberon]

Such as ?

Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Josephus, the other epistles, and Thomas.

 

[Dunemeister]

Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Josephus, the other epistles, and Thomas.

Let's not forget the first generation of church fathers, many of whom actually knew apostles.

 

[Oberon]

Let's not forget the first generation of church fathers, many of whom actually knew apostles.

Good point. Papias, Polycarp, et al also tell us a bit, and more importantly they give us an idea on the structure of authority and control of transmission of the Jesus tradition.

 

[Heneni]

Completely off topic, but oberon, do historians consider the bible of satan, (dont know its fancy name) as a legitimate historical document?

 

[Oberon]

Completely off topic, but oberon, do historians consider the bible of satan, (dont know its fancy name) as a legitimate historical document?

Are you talking about the Satanic Bible? Also, I'm a little confused about your question. Every text is a historical document in some sense, but not all of them are fall into historical genres (biography, history, etc). There is no text which falls into the genre of history of any sort that deals with Satan.

 

[logician]

"Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Josephus, the other epistles, and Thomas"

Except assuming these figures existed apriori is bad logic.

Simply a house of cards.

 

[Oberon]

"Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Josephus, the other epistles, and Thomas"

Except assuming these figures existed apriori is bad logic.

Simply a house of cards.

We don't assume that Paul existed a priori. We have his letters. We know about Josephus too. As for the gospels, we don't know who wrote them. Luke at least, however, gives us a good idea of his involvement in the early christian church. He was certainly in a more than adequate position to know what the followers of Jesus were saying about Jesus' mission. So was Paul. The author of John was too, but he seems less interested in history and more interested in theology.